Skip to main content

tv   CNN Newsroom With Brooke Baldwin  CNN  January 11, 2017 12:00pm-1:01pm PST

12:00 pm
with that senator rish? >> thank you. >> he has a ten minute segment because of missing the first round. thank you for being here. >> thank you, i won't take the full ten minutes. mr. tillerson, thank you for doing this, you're going to be hitting the ground at a very difficult time as u.s. relationships around the world have spiralled out of control from time to time and we are not in a good place in many parts of the world primarily in part of u.s. policy and it's going to be rethought, redeveloped and i thank you for willing to take that on. i was struck when you were named that this is something that's been a bit off of the radar screen of most americans, and that is the importance of the work that the state department does in dealing with our companies and with commerce in foreign countries, most
12:01 pm
americans don't realize how difficult it is to do business overseas and the state department really needs to focus on that more than what they have and be helpful to countries that do want to do business overseas because a lot of times it has to go through government sources to get into business over there. so i was impressed with that and i'm glad having your business background that you do i think you're going to be very helpful in that regard in helping the state department further understand its responsibilities in that regard and the state department does a great job, every one of us have traveled overseas, sometimes bipartisan and we are always treated so well by our people state department people working there regardless of our party.
12:02 pm
russia has as a lot of play in this meeting but we haven't talked much about iran and north korea. those are a couple of real chal challenges for us and those policies as far as those two countries are concerned really need to be rethought and recalibrated and then reannounced a way that they understand what america is going to do, where we're coming from and what we're going to do. i think in talking with people, our allies, they are confused as to where we want to go with this and what we're going to do and how, the same is true with isis, how we're going to handle that situation operating in iraq and syria, i'm not going to press you on those because you are just getting your feet on the ground and i hope the president elect will be after you're able to get your arms around these
12:03 pm
things he'll listen to you carefully as to the policies we're going to develop for that. the policies need to be entirely different than what they are. in that part of the world, the sipping tea and singing kumbaya is not a way you're going to be successful. they understand strength. not necessarily the use of strength but they understand people who possess strength and people who will use that strength if necessary. they need to be convinced of that and i know there's a lot of people complaining about the relationship between mr. putin and the president elect and for that matter yourself and mr. put putin. i hope mr. putin gets to know you guys really, really well because i think he will be convinced that you do project american strength and that america still has the muscle that its had and that we still
12:04 pm
stand for what we stand for and we're going to project that around the world. so in that regard, i really hope that mr. putin does have a relationship to where he gets to know both of youf guys and especially the president elect because i think that will impress him that he's not going to be able to get away with the kind of stuff he's gotten away with in the crimea, in syria or other places meddling in places they shouldn't be, so finally let me say again thank you for your willingness to do this, i've been impressed as sitting here. the meeting we had in my office was very good. we were able to develop a will the of these thoughts a lot more deeply than we can here and i want to say i've been really impressed having come from a private sector background myself it's difficult for people to understand that the transition from the private sector and business into the world of
12:05 pm
diplomacy is very different. it's a transition that needs to be made and just sitting here listening to you over the hours that you have been here i've been very impressed that you have been able to make that transition. you're speaking in terms that diplomats understand, i appreciate that and i think it will serve you well as you go forward, so again, thank you for your willingness to do this and i yield back time. >> thank you. this was the last person of the first round so we're going to get back into the sync we were before. senator johnson. >> thank you mr. chairman. i want to go back to the four responsibilities that secretary gates lied out. negotiation agreements, represent us broad and the state department. u.s. abroad. i met you the morning i returned from my trip to israel which was a couple of days before i would term it our u.s. is shameful abstention in that vote on
12:06 pm
settlements. i've never understood why any administration on a bipartisan fashion would force a friend, ally, to sit down and negotiate with i guess negotiating partners that refuse to acknowledge the right to exist. in business it's sitting down and forcing negotiations with a business that doesn't want to sell it. i think that complicates the future negotiation on that. >> i do have a view on that, senator, thank you. in many respects if you are negotiating with someone that denies your right to list why would they ever live up to an agreement if you don't expect you to be around and then to force one party to the table through coercion or however you want to describe the most recent
12:07 pm
resolution is not useful. there have been in opportunities for parties to try to sit down and work things out. the leadership certainly has not seized those opportunities. i would say in the case of the palestinian leadership. they have renounced violence it's one thing to renounce and another to take concrete action to prevent it and i think until there's a serious demonstration on their part that they are wanting to do more than just renounce the violence they're willing to do something to at least interrupt it or interfere with it. it's going to be very difficult to create conditions for the parties around the table to conduct any situation of settleme settleme settlement. >> do you think palestinians refuse to say yes? >> i think there are many, many opportunities for progress to be
12:08 pm
made and those are never been seized upon. so it's a matter to be discussed and decided between the two parties to the extend america's foreign policy can create a more fruitful environment, but then this has to be setted between the t -- setted between the two parties. >> in terms of advising the president i think congress has willingly given away its advice power the most recent is the iranian, you look at the -- it was clearly a treaty, and that vote on the amendment should have been 100-1. every senator should have voted to support and uphold the constitution our power on advice and consent.
12:09 pm
first of all do you believe that was a treaty? >> it would have all the appearances of a treaty. it looks like a treaty. >> what about the paris climate accord a fair amount of -- do you believe that's a treaty on its own? >> it looks like a treaty. >> will you advice the president as you negotiate for this nation to respect the constitution and come to congress to come to the senate for advice and consent on treaties? >> senator i respect the proper roles of both branches of government, the president elect as well and i think he's expressed some of these same views that under the past administration the executive branch has gone pretty far out there in terms of recognize congress to express its own views on some of these.
12:10 pm
>> the sate department, you were a ceo of a successful operation, but there are employees have the mission statements and understand the roles to achieve their goals and supportive of the goel s of the organization, you're going to be assuming the leadership of a department that let's face it you have entrenched bureaucrats that are not only don't necessarily agree with the next administrations foreign policy but might be hostile to it. as an experienced manager how are you going to deal with that? >> you're right, senator, the state department a little over 70,000 employees about the same size of the organization i led while at exxonmobil. about more than 40,000 of the state department employees are deployed overseas, about 60% of
12:11 pm
exxonmobil employees are not americans, so in terms of understanding and dealing with people representing you around the world and half way around the world in various embassies and missions how do you get all these people aligned and the objective is america's interest and america's national security so i think part of leadership is expressing very clear views and part of leadership is having an organization that has a clear line of sight on issues to who owns these and going to be held accountable for them and working in concert toward that objective. my experience has been that people look for leadership. and when they're acting in ways contrary to the overall mission it's generally because there's been an absence of strong leadership to clearly define to them what that expectation is and their role is, and then
12:12 pm
reward people behaving that supports the overall mission and not their own agenda, i've used working in the general interest, the general interest of the state department is the american people's interest and if anyone is working in way only to advance their own interest they're not working in the general interest and i think it's important that people understand that is the responsibility of all of us who will serve the country and the state department is the american people's interest. >> senator shaheen. >> thank you . i appreciate it very much your response to that question, because i have to say my experience with state department employees that the overwhelming majority of them are dedicated, they're dedicated to this country. they do their work often at
12:13 pm
great personal sacrifice and i think we should appreciate the work they do and it sounds like you appreciate the sacrifices they make. >> i certainly do, i have a great affection for those willing to go overseas to take these assignments. many are in difficult positions and when their families go with them they truly are sacrificing on behalf of this country and they deserve the thank you and recognition for it. >> thank you. there's been discussion about concerns this committee has expressed which i think are legitimate about potential conflicts of interests that you might face if confirmed as secretary of state because of your long career at exxon, and while i understand there are some concerns about the precise approach that you have taken to divest your interests in exxon,
12:14 pm
i do appreciate that you have taken these concrete actions an you plan to take more if confirmed and i would like you to talk about why you think that's important. >> senator as i commented in response to question earlier, i had a great 41 and a half year career, i was truly blessed. enjoyed every part of it. that part of my life is over. i've been humbled to have an opportunity to serve my country, i have never had an opportunity to serve in this way, so to say yes to president-elect trump when he asked me to do this the first step i took was to retain outside koucounsel and my first impression was i must have a clean break from everything in exxonmobil and whatever is acquired to achieve that to get
12:15 pm
in place and i am appreciative that the exxonmobil board was willing to work with me on that as well it was their objective too and whatever i needed to do to walk away from, that's fine. i said i don't want there to be any appearance up or done of -- of the exxonmobil corporation. >> i am sad to say it's in stark contrast from president-elect trump who said he is not going to divest himself from his vast business interests around the world, so i thank you for understanding this is important for the public and around the world. you talked and eliminating isis
12:16 pm
if you are confirmed and it connects radical islam to isis and you also make the point of saying you think it's important to support muslims around the world who reject radical islam. during the last congress this committee heard about the importance of working with the muslim community in the united states to combat yiisis and the domestic terrorists produced as a result of isis ideology. in your view, is it helpful to suggest that as americans we should be afraid of muslims? >> no, senator, in my travels and because of my past work, i've traveled extensively in muslim countries, not just in the middle east but throughout southeast asia and i've gained appreciation of this great faith and that's why i made a
12:17 pm
distinction that we should make a distinction of this part, this is part of the war on the battlefield we have to win it not just on the battlefield but one of our greatest allies in this war is going to be the moderate voices of muslim, people of the muslim faith who speak from their perspective and their rejection of that representation of what is otherwise a great faith. >> and so, do you support restricting travel or immigration to the united states by muslims? >> i think what's important is that we are able to make a judgment about the people that are coming into the country and so no, i do not support a blanket type rejection of any particular group of people, but clearly, we have serious challenges. to be able to vet people coming into the country. and particularly under the current circumstances because of the instability and parts of the
12:18 pm
world it's occurring and the massive migration that's occurred out of the region and a lack of any documentation following people as they have moved through various other country, we can't close our eyes, we have to be very clear about that threat and recognizing it. >> i agree with that this i think is entirely different than a entire ban on people of that religion. do you support american registry of muslimmuslims? >> i would have to have lot more information on how an approach were even to be constructed. if it were a tool for vetting then it probably extends to people as well. other groups that are threats to the u.s., but that's -- it would just require much more information around how that
12:19 pm
would even be approached. >> one of the things you and i discussed when we met was the special immigrant visa program that we have maintained for afghans who have helped our men and women in the military on the ground. and, will you support continuing that program to ensure those people who have been properly vetted who helped our men and women are able to come to this country when their lives are threatened in afafghanistan. >> it's important we protect those whose lives are at risk, whether military forces or other forces in afghanistan and it's also important to make this distinction otherwise we miss losing it to let people come through the program that are not truly at risk, i think it's the
12:20 pm
execution and this gets back to following through on what the intent of these programs were and let's be very specific and execute well and not get sloppy in the execution and start having a lot of other folks coming through the program that really don't meet that criteria. >> thank you. i think congress has pretty narrowly focused the program. i appreciate that. >> i do want to say i appreciate the fact that you're able to highlight that you know the secretary of state shares his views, ultimately has to carry out the policies of the president or not success. but i think it's good to distinguish that sometimes people have very different views and they lobby strongly for those views and that's what we are wanting to hear is what mr. tillerson's views are on these
12:21 pm
views, and may tend to attempt to persuade the administration. >> thank you for your participation in this very important discussion. i would follow-up with many issues on human rights, i was notified there are two additional individuals in north korea under the sleilegislation passed the north korean act, the younger sister of kim jong-un. i appreciate your commitment that you gave me in the prior round of questioning about your commitment to the mandatory sanctioning of people with violation of human rights, and we need to make sure we would protect people from the tyrants
12:22 pm
around the globe. china has been rebuilding, 3,000 acres of land since 2013, reports and open source information they have militarized these areas, we offered resolution that called for the obama administration to take a stronger more aggressive approach to these activities in is south china sea including nav vague operations -- navigations over the china sea. what do you believe the position of the united states ought to be in the south china sea and what more could we be doing to stop violating international law? >> when it comes to china and you mentioned north korea previous to this we have to take a whole of china government
12:23 pm
approach. i mentioned in opening remarks we do have important economic relationships. i said our economies are intertwined. but we've got to step back and look at all of china's activities and the one you mention now the island building in the south china sea, the controlling air space over the islands with japan, both are illegal actions, they're taking territory or control or declaring control of territories not rightfully china's, the island building in the south china sea in many respecte resp kin to russia's taking of crimea, taking territory that others lay claim to. the u.s. has never taken side in the issues but what we have advocated for is that's a disputed area.
12:24 pm
>> the vice president elect mike pence up on capitol hill speaking to reporters. let's listen in. >> -- on our legislative agenda and grateful for his hospitality and look forward to working with him in the days ahead. >> are there issues you think can work with senator on? >> we do. rebuild our military, reform our health care, but opportunities to work together on issues like infrastructure and child care we think represent a significant chance to bring together leaders in both political parties but we talked about all that, the decisions that the senate will be facing in the days ahead and but it was good to be able to sit with him and i very much look forward to working with senator kaine and other colleagues that i'll be meeting with in the days ahead. >> can i just ask you about --
12:25 pm
>> a little conversation, not much with the vice president elect. he's up on the hill talking to members of the senate, members to have house just getting together. these are important meetings for him because he's going to be the key liaison to the executive branch. >> he is somebody who knows how capitol hill works, president-elect trump hopes to accomplish much. he is a key member of the administration, key member to have white house when it comes to passing laws that trump wants to put in affect. >> and we heard earlier from the president elect he thinks they will in the coming days be able to repeal and replace obamacare almost simultaneously on the same day.
12:26 pm
he's speaking again, let's listen in. >> we are committed to an ordererly transition. the american people in november voted for change and voted to -- they vote todayd to appeal obam but we're going to also replace it that will improve health care and the quality of lives. they're going repeal and replace. the president elect thinks they can do that nearly simultaneously and very soon. >> there's been a lot of mixed signals in terms of what's going to happen with the replacement. the process that would require only 51 votes in the u.s. senate is one that would only deal with the financial parts of obamacare the raising of taxes or cuttings
12:27 pm
of taxes the penalties, et cetera, not necessarily provisions such as not allowing insurance companies to deny coverage to people with preexisting conditions, so it's a very complicated process, that are experts on health care who say it would be kind of difficult to do it all in one fell swoop or even instant tly. >> they contributed nearly $50 million in aid to india, provided one to one scholarships for 145,000 indian children. but it's been part of coordinated political atatacks, but do to restrictions by the indian government they have been
12:28 pm
unable to fund it since 2016 despite having broken no laws, i believe the state department should take notice of this ill treatment should stop and part of a broader pattern by the government of india, where others have seen similar problems. the state department should release compassion funds and permit it to resume the operations and we appreciate your assistance on this. this is a pattern very disturbing of an organization that does nothing more than try to help children in poverty. >> i look forward to talking to you. >> i know the chairman will be thankful that you brought it to everyone's attention. >> thank you. mr. tillerson in your capacity as ceo of exxonmobil, you
12:29 pm
praised the paris agreement last year noting that addressing climate change and i quote requires broad based practical solutions around the world. do you personally believe that the overall national interests of the united states are better served by staying in the paris agreement? if so why? and if not why not? >> i think having a seat at the table to address this issue on a global basis and it is important that i think it's 190 countries or thereabouts have signed on to begin to take action. i think we're better served by being at that table than leaving that table. >> and i think you understand that it's been a generation or more that it's taken to get all the countries at the table to sign an agreement, be willing to move forward with targets and it would be very unfortunate i
12:30 pm
think to move away from the table, so thank you for your answer there. i just wanted to follow-up on a discussion senator flake had with you in the first round urging you to look at the successes of our policy change in cuba. and this is mainly because you as a ceo at exxon i suspect you had a low tolerance for old ideas that had failed to produce positive results. regardless of what one thinks about the cuban government, no one can argue that the policy of embargo and isolation has achieved any progress, the proof is right in front of us, the castro regime endures, and im for the engagement and you mentioned doing a bottoms up review, and thinking about that, i'm going to point out these things have happened and are
12:31 pm
very positive. we've worked with the cubans to comb combat zika and diabetes, and access to the internet have paid off with new wi-fi hot spots in havana and improved access to the island including roaming deals to u.s. carriers, increase bilateral activities by the chamber of commerce and last weeks cuba signed a bilateral agreement to respond to oil spills and hazardous pollutions in the gulf of mexico and the straights of florida. our new policy according to a research poll shows 72% of
12:32 pm
americans support renewed. and -- support the embargo. i hope we will not be letting the americans down by returning to a period where such efforts are policy by a failed policy that showed no results, instead i hope you will continue to work to support the cuban small business owner. almost 500,000 licensed bif businesses that led to american businesses in cuba, will you recommend to president-elect trump a policy engagement with cuba in order to foster a change needed on the island or do you prefer to go back to the old past 50 years to under mine the
12:33 pm
castro regime? >> the job of the diplomat is to engage and so engagement is always preferred and our door is always open. but we have to be honest with ourselves, there is long standing statutes in place that govern that relationship. that helps amendment. the designated list of state sponsors of terrorism and specific criteria around whether we and organizations and those conducting affairs in cuba are in skpliecompliance with those, statutory requirements and if we are able to engage in a positive way and comply with all of the statutes, that's a good thing. i don't know because i've not had the opportunity to have a fuolsom examination, obviously
12:34 pm
someone had to make a determination that something changed. did it in fact change? i would like to see all the documentati documentation? the information around that, otherwise if we're going to change the relationship, we got to change those statutes as well. so again, kind of this common theme, maybe you're hearing from me we live up to the agreements and the laws, and fully enforce them, they were put there for a reason, if we need to change them, and the posture on them as that will happen as well, but because of the recent past here much by executive order and i think the president elect has indicated held like to understand that, what was the criteria that the state department used to make that determination. that's what he's going to be asking me. >> the reason i cited those polls is that the american people are at the point of
12:35 pm
wanting the statutes to be set aside. i don't want to argue with you but i very much appreciate your answers in terms of consulting state department people and you know i can't think of better professionals than these state department professionals that spend decades learning about the regions that they serve in, the specific countries they work on and i appreciate your thoughtfulness in terms of doing that and just a final question here is senator me den dez mentioned the whole issue of fugitives, we also have a fugitive by the name of charlie hill who i believe should be brought to justice and i really believe we have a better chance at getting him out or already having discussions if we engage with them rather than going back to a policy of isolation, so with that thank you very much. >> thank you, chairman.
12:36 pm
i'll continue on the team just a bit. we hear the word concession a lot. and we shouldn't make concessions to dictators. part of the executive orders taken over the past couple of years, one of the first of which is 2009 we found cuban americans that had families still in cuba would have to choose between going to their mother's funeral or father's funeral if their parents died in the same three years. what a horrible thing to ask of an american. do you believe it is a concession to the regime to allow a cuban-american to visit or to go to his father or mother's funeral in cuba? >> senator, these are really heartbreaking questions that again i have to take us back to what are our statutes? what are the provisions that govern that? and these are where exceptions
12:37 pm
become really difficult. and so i want to be honest with you. when i say my expectation is if confirmed is to do a complete bottoms review of all these issu issues, under what provisions are we making these exceptions? under what conditions can we grant perhaps an exception for someone to resolve these really difficult personal issues for people? but not under mimine our americ values which is the leadership of cuba must change the way it treats its people. >> i don't think it was the president's executive authority to make that change. i don't think it was questioned. there was certainly no lawsuits filed or any real resistance as soon as a cuban-american traveled back to cuba it was assumed this is a great thing
12:38 pm
and hundreds of thousands have and remitted more money. it was illegal for them to send fish hooks to family members on the island before. those were removed i would submit those are not concessions to a regime, it's not a concession to a regime to allow americans to travel, those are on americans not cubans, same thing with diplomatic relations we have some relations with some pretty unsavory countries, or the leadership is pretty unsavory, we have diplomatic relations with saudi arabia, is it a concession to the regime to have diplomatic relations with the country? >> well, this is a question again that is grounded in long standing historic policy of the united states. >> right. >> and that policy and the
12:39 pm
statutes that govern that policy if the time has come for statutes to be altered, that will be the role of congress to alter those statutes. >> right. >> in the meantime at the state department if i'm there and confirmed to be there it's our role to enforce what congress has expressed its desire, so if the judgment of the congress and the judgment of the state department, the president elect through consultation views we have moved to a different place, then we should address that, but not just ignore what the law of the land is. >> right. no, i understand that completely. i'm just saying diplomatic relations with countries is not a concession to those countries. it is in our national interest, the way we practice state craft and diplomacy is to have diplomatic relations and i would
12:40 pm
suggest that's the same with cuba, there are fugitives in custody in cuba, and fugitives in other countries that we would like back as well, we use state craft and diplomacy to try to change those things, if we say we're going to with hold diplomatic relations with ambassadors where would we be? so i would suggest that a review is prudent. allowing americans to travel to cuba, we still have restrictio s restrictions, i would suggest the restrictions have americans place more money in the government's hands when they travel to cuba, if we just lifted the travel ban completely
12:41 pm
and more easily ensure more money goes to family members and entrepreneurs on that island, so i'm glad a review is going to take place and i'm glad that you're going to be part of that review. just in a minute and a half left, you have talked a lot about sanctions as i mentioned in the beginning i share your aversion to sanctions when they're practiced unilaterally. sanction s are simply a method e have to change behavior or induce or to punish countries. what other tools do we have without resorting to sanctions? >> depending on what exactly the issue is and what the target country is, certainly we have other tools related to our trade policies in general. we have tools related to our immigration and visa exchange
12:42 pm
policies in particular. in terms of the soft power side of this, obviously we always have the hard power tool to use so i think it does depend on the specific country, the specific issue, what our relationship has been. what oare the pressure points that they're going to feel it? and that's the issue i have around ensuring that sanctions are properly structured so we hit the proper pressure point that causes the change in the way that party's thinking or change in the direction they're going. so it is very much case by case in terms of what we can use to apply pressure to whatever government we are wanting to alter their course. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. i appreciate your comments on cuba and the multilateral sanctions issue and i will say you're going to find on both sides of the aisle strong divisions on the issue of cuba.
12:43 pm
people sitting next to each other having very, very different views and i do hope you will seek input of all as you do this top to bottom review. having sat here i do want to clarify that i don't think necessarily you expressed an aversion to sanctions, i think what you may have expressed if i heard correctly is just ensuring when they're implemented they're implemented in a way that's appropriate, is that correct? >> that's correct chairman, and the comment at one point this morning, having it is worse than having no sanctions at all because it sends a weak signal to the target country and they say oh, they're not really serious after all so if we're going to have sanctions they need to be carefully crafted. >> senator kaine. >> thank you. mr. tillerson. i want to stay in the americas, you and i had a good discussion
12:44 pm
about the americas and you have done work in the americas and also being a texan you understand the importance of the relationships. we've been grappling on this committee an in this country unaccompanied minors coming from the northern triangle that migration from mexico is kind of almost at an even zero point but the instability in the northern triangle, drug trade and weak civil institutions has created challenges, we supported in a bipartisan way, investments in the northern triangle but want to make sure they're targeted in the right way of bringing more stability and creating opportunity so people don't feel a need to flee. talk a little bit about that part of foreign affairs po portfolio and how would you approach those issue sns. >> -- >> we talked about the hot spots and i say that in all seriousness because i don't
12:45 pm
think we should in any way downgrade the importance of the western hemisphere and what's going on not just in what's going on in north america but south america as well, there are important relationships, there are not unimportant national security issues in this hemisphere also. but as to the immigration challenge and i think you described it pretty well what's happened over the last most recent time, is a real shift in where these people coming across the border in an illegal fashion where are they coming from? largely transiting from mexico south of mexico's border. i'm aware of the northern triangle project trying to strengthen law enforcement because a lot of people are motivated to run from high crime ridden areas, anti-narcotics trafficking, helping strengthen
12:46 pm
the govern institutions and providing a safer environment for people to the extent we can direct assistance programs to give economic development as well. some is simple infrastructure projects and not how to just use this special targeted efforts and funds made available there but also how we use other aid programs like the millennial challenge to develop the capabilities of these countries to perform better. i do think and i know you and i spoke about this when we were in your office, kind of out of our true compassion coming across the border unaccompanied minors how to deal with that and i know and in response to that challenge there's been some well-intended action taken and programs like daca the deferred treatment of adjudication of
12:47 pm
these cases all well intended but when those got translated back to the host country the places these people are leaving from, we know that it got miss interpreted. and even the leaders of those countries have spoken in public and indicated look, the wrong signals are being sent down here as a result of this effort to be compassionate and in fact it's incentivizing because it's misunderstood taken from greater risk to themselves to their children to try to make this journey across mexico largely using illegal smugglers to get them to this country, so i think we just have to be very thoughtful about the signals we're sending the messages we're sending and i think go back as you say go back and try to address some of the issues in the host country, also work with mexico our partner right next
12:48 pm
door, this is a challenge for them. how to secure their southern poorest border and deal with this transiting to get to their country to the land of the free and the home of the brave where everybody wants to be, so that will be the challenge we have before us. we're going to have to deal with the situation that we have today. the reality of it. i think this is where the intent of the president elect while he does express it this the view of the wall but what he is really expressing is we have to get control of this border, to prevent and stop the flow of people coming across an how we do that, what policies and how we execute those are yet to be developed but certainly the state department if i confirm will have a big role in the foreign aspects of that. once they come across the border they're largely the homeland security's responsibilities. the state departments role will be what actions can we take the
12:49 pm
prevent the movement of the people in an illegal fashion? we want people to come legally. this is the history of the country is that people came here legally. >> wimr. tillerson thank you. i encourage people to fly north to south not just east and west, and other parts of the world have a claim in our attention, but there are some real opportunities. i assume you support the u.s. position that's been in place since the 1940s to do what we can to provide a two-state solution with israel and palestine with a living peacefully side by side, that is the dream we hope for that region and i assume that you support that? >> i don't think anyone would take a position they don't hope for peace in that area for the issues to be ultimately resolved. >> and peace within the context of a two-state solution as was
12:50 pm
determined by the u.n. and been the bipartisan policy since the late 1940s? >> i think that's the dream everyone is in pursuit of. whether it can be a reality remains to be seen. >> i think that's a right that's frustrated all of us that's been so little progress so what do you think from the secretary of state's position you could do to try to hasten the day when we could find a path forward? people didn't think you could find a peace deal for ireland and >> i'm glad you pit it in the context of hundreds of years. that was euphemistic. but i think it is indicative of how conflicts like this take a long time and sometimes it takes another generation to have a changed view. oftentimes we just have to try and make the situation as stable
12:51 pm
as possible and limit the impacts on people that are living there now. the palestinian people have suffered a lot under, under their own leadership in many cases as a result of there not being more progress made. so, i think it has to be a shared aspiration of all of us that that ultimately is resolved. the issues are long-standing and i think it's the state department's role to create, try to create an environment that brings parties together to want to find a way forward. i can tell you under the conditions today that's just -- it's extremely challenging to do that, but that has to be the aspirational goal. and to your example, sometimes it takes a different generation that's not carrying all that baggage of the past with them. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chair. >> absolutely, thank you. senator young. >> thank you. mr. tillerson, from the outset i just want to thank you, the
12:52 pm
level of candor you've shown throughout this hearing. you've engaged on issues, you've answered questions. you've been adept at times skpirks want that from our nation's chief diplomat. the only request i would make is that they don't coach that out of you should your nomination move forward and you become our next secretary of state, which i suspect you will. so, thank you for that. in your prepared statement you write, quote, defeating isis must be our foremost priority in the middle east, unquote. you also note later that defeat will not occur in the battle field alone. we must win the war of idea, something we've already discussed a bit here. i couldn't agree more. we have to win the war of ideas. we can kill every single irreconcilable, as you know, who subscribes to this poisonous
12:53 pm
ideology, those who join isis do, and yet we're still going to have a problem. the organization will reconstitute itself, so, really there is something deeper we need to tap into, a deeper tap root. in your prepared statement, going back to that, you indicate that if confirmed you will ensure the state department does its part here in this war of ideas. now, based on your presentation for this hearing, what is your assessment of the state department's current performance in the war of ideas? and once you make your comment specific to our effort against the islamic state? >> senator, i'm not sure i could articulate what the current state department is doing in the war on ideas, other than the advocacy, the public advocacy of condemning this type of brutality. i think, i think your observation that even if we
12:54 pm
defeat isis in its calyphate they will morph to something else. this is where we have to be truthful in our conversations with the american people. terrorism has been a part of the world for centuries. it is the nature of man, the unfortunate nature of man. but what we have to do is certainly limit it and suppress it to a level that it is no longer a threat to our national security or a threat, an imminent threat to americans or all other people in the world who value human life. >> so, in a recent hearing before the armed services committee, dni clapper indicated he believes u.s. might restp united states information agency to fight this information war, and to advance our efforts to
12:55 pm
defeat radical extremists or terrorists however one chooses to brand them. do you agree this would be a good idea? >> i think as i indicated in the exchange with senator portman, we have got to up our game in terms of how we engage in both the digital communication world, because that's where isis has been very effective, and other radical groups, al-qaeda and others have been effective in using the digital communication space to spread their message. we've got to become more effective at encount erring that message and countering that message. but i also take senator portman's observation that it's not all digital. there are other communication mechanisms that are effective broad based, in terms of how do we communicate particularly in those parts of the world that could be susceptible to these messages. >> for the record, for the benefit of my colleagues and
12:56 pm
also for your benefit, i'll note that i'm just coming from the house of representatives. in my final two-year term, i introduced legislation so that congress could assess whether or not the counter, countering violent extremism initiative within the obama administration was working or not. is it working? i was prepared to be briefed in a classified setting, yet the administration came out fairly strongly against our efforts to exercise oversight. so, my hope would be that i can work together in a bipartisan way in the next administration, we will have the tools to assess whether or not we are improving and work with the administration to ensure that we are, in fact, killing the terrorists, countering violent extremism, most importantly making sure this effort doesn't reconstitute itself moving forward. mr. tillerson, back to the prepared statement, you write that china has not been a
12:57 pm
reliable partner in using its influence to curb north korea. i know we've discussed this before, slightly different attack here. just open-ended question here. why do you believe china has not done more? >> well, i'm aware that under the most recent version i believe of the u.n. sanctions which had been ratcheted up with each of north korea's provocative, whether it's been a nuclear test or the test firing of a missile, that -- and i indicated earlier china is 90% of north korea's trading export, import trading. they really do have complete control over what sustains the government in north korea. a big part of that is the sale of anthracite coal aa cross the border. they did speak to that sale. i think that is an area we have to hold china accountable to comport with the sanctions put in place with the u.n. we have to call people out on it
12:58 pm
when we view they're not complying. >> so, there might be -- there might be an opportunity to exploit there with respect to the reliance on anthracite coal to ensure the missile and nuclear programs comply with international law and our security interests? >> well, under the u.n. resolutions, north korea has already violated those on multiple occasions with both the nuclear test including the one most recently in september as well as their firing of tests -- >> let me interject, which is d.c. talk for interrupt. what would you suggest to the president of the united states he consider doing to wield more effective influence over china's decision making on north korea, in ten seconds or less, please? >> it does involve -- well, it does involve a concerted response from our allies as well, japan, north korea, and making sure china understands as part of this whole of china approach, that this is an
12:59 pm
important element of what they can do to strengthen our relationship or they can do to weaken our relationship with them. >> thank you. >> thank you, sir. senator martin. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for sticking this out, mr. tillerson, this is a long day. i want to come back to the issue of human rights because i do worry that there are going to be a lot of human rights advocates, a lot of people who are hoping that the united states maintains its leadership role on maintaining and promoting human rights around the world. we are going to be worried about some of your testimony here today, asked about the 3500 extra judicial killings in the philippines, you weren't yet ready to say you had enough evidence to call that a violation of human rights. similar answer on saudi arabia and a similar answer with respect to the war crimes perpetuated by the russians
1:00 pm
inside syria. so, i guess the simple question for you is this. if you're not ready to say today that what's happening in the philippines is a human rights violation, despite the fact that the president brags about killing people without trial or the denial of rights to women in saudi arabia as a named human rights violation or what's happening in syria as a war crime, can you maybe give us a little bit of a sense of what countries today you would consider to be violators of human rights, or how you are going to make judgments about where the u.s. pursues human rights violators and where we he don't? because i think it will be a surprise to a lot of people coming out of this hearing that you aren't ready today to call president duterte a violator of human rights, or to call what's happening in saudi arabia a named violation of human rights under international law. >> well, i think somewhere in
left
right